Cletus C.:Mentat: Cletus C.: Obama saying he will not negotiate, then negotiates. Failure.

The only thing Obama gave up in this fight was the back of his hand.

And written on the back of that hand was language on checking income eligibility for ACA applicants,

The party of small Government wants more Government up in people's business getting them to prove that they don't have the income they don't have. How is that supposed to work? Anyways they can always blame the GOP when people get pissed off by this.

Cletus C.:Mentat: Cletus C.: Obama saying he will not negotiate, then negotiates. Failure.

The only thing Obama gave up in this fight was the back of his hand.

And written on the back of that hand was language on checking income eligibility for ACA applicants, a few spending measures for certain districts, a promise for bipartisan budget negotiations and a few more things. Not much. But he did negotiate.

hey, he had to cave in and capitulate a little bit or he couldn't call himself a true democrat, you think they can spend years building up a brand of spinelessness and then throw it all away?

t3knomanser:Corn_Fed: Just curious...while I realize a third party has no chance of winning the presidency, what would prevent a third party from gaining a bunch of seats in the House of Representatives? And slowly building a coalition?

Mostly barriers to getting on the ballot. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are completely stupid. They have a good thing going, and from the local level on up, they make it extremely hard for third parties to get on the ballot.

There are "safe districts".For example, when electing a Congressman, I know my vote doesn't count. I live in Pittsburgh- we're sending the Democrat. Ditto on the President. Heck, even for Mayor- since I'm not a registered Democrat, I don't get to vote for mayor (the mayor is decided by the Democratic primary, not the general election).

There's spite voting- many voters don't vote for a candidate because they particularly love that candidate- they just hate the other guy. So if I really hate Republicans, I'm going to vote for the Democrats and not a third party. That's because the Democrats have the best chance of beating the people I don't like. Look at how many people complained about Nader splitting the vote in 2000 (and Perot in 1992).

The median voter theorem has a role to play in this, too. People will usually vote for whichever candidate is closest to their own feelings- which simply means that someone has to find the median voter's stance on the issues and build a platform there. If a third party candidate starts the process there, you had better believe that one of the major party candidates will move in and steal it from him (in fact, one of the major purposes of third parties is to act as a "colonial organism" for politics- they move into new areas of the political landscape and then get displaced by the major parties).

This is all fueled by first-past-the-post voting. It's a system naturally geared towards building a two party system. The parties will shift, fragment and reform, but in the end, it ...

COMALite J:I didn't know that Texas had already gone through with their plans to split into six States (I thought it was five?), and isn't it a bit confusing for them all to keep the same name? Not to mention East and West Tennessee, and North and South Georgia plus Greater Atlanta as a third Georgia State? And I guess the (318) Area Code of Louisiana is a separate State now in reality just as it has always pretty much been culturally? And is Maricopa County its own State now?

I may be mistaken (and I don't think anyone else has addressed this), but I believe he has listed each state once per Representative that was on the wrong (e.g. 'Tea Party') side of this. Thus, for example, if Texas had six TP Reps trying to push the country off the cliff, Texas got listed six times.

If so, that was a confusing way to put that list together, but that's the best guess I can make about it.

urbangirl:Ambivalence: Heliovdrake: Conservatism cant fail you, only YOU can fail conservaism, and thats what we saw last night. We need to distance ourselves from the RINO SCUM who voted with the socialist democrats, Rush and Glenn already get it, they know the majority of the G.odless O.ld P.retenders. Now is the time, rally our troops and kick out the GOP in 2014! Patch up as many holes as we can in the USS USA by blocking anything the dictator in chief wants until 2016 when we can get our MAN into office, I feel bad for the mess he'll have to deal with, and Im sure the smell will never come out of the carpet in the oval office!

/What do you think? I'm trying to pander better to the GOP, I want to start a blog and sell merch on it to the rubes, this is my first real go at pandering to them. Do I have enough vitrol, or should I crank up the hate, or subtle racism?

I think you should pepper it with obscure homo-erotic euphemisms. Oh, and rape references. That's pretty much all you're missing.

As a woman, I'd like to suggest some reference to abortion/baby killing.

Needs more Jeezus... Also, ALL CAPS for words like "SOCIALIST," DICTATOR," "rally OUR troops," etc, & more exclamation points. Have to over-emphasize the nuttery, otherwise they'll see that you're not truly "ONE OF US!!!"

MustangFive:urbangirl: Ambivalence: Heliovdrake: Conservatism cant fail you, only YOU can fail conservaism, and thats what we saw last night. We need to distance ourselves from the RINO SCUM who voted with the socialist democrats, Rush and Glenn already get it, they know the majority of the G.odless O.ld P.retenders. Now is the time, rally our troops and kick out the GOP in 2014! Patch up as many holes as we can in the USS USA by blocking anything the dictator in chief wants until 2016 when we can get our MAN into office, I feel bad for the mess he'll have to deal with, and Im sure the smell will never come out of the carpet in the oval office!

/What do you think? I'm trying to pander better to the GOP, I want to start a blog and sell merch on it to the rubes, this is my first real go at pandering to them. Do I have enough vitrol, or should I crank up the hate, or subtle racism?

I think you should pepper it with obscure homo-erotic euphemisms. Oh, and rape references. That's pretty much all you're missing.

As a woman, I'd like to suggest some reference to abortion/baby killing.

Needs more Jeezus... Also, ALL CAPS for words like "SOCIALIST," DICTATOR," "rally OUR troops," etc, & more exclamation points. Have to over-emphasize the nuttery, otherwise they'll see that you're not truly "ONE OF US!!!"

I would suggest one minor alteration: capitalize "OUR" in "our MAN". The emphasis should not be on the gender of the occupant -- or, at least, not solely upon the gender -- but upon the fact that the occupant is "ours", and thus not "theirs".

Additionally, a reference to the "Mainstream MSM Media" may be helpful.

t3knomanser:Corn_Fed: Just curious...while I realize a third party has no chance of winning the presidency, what would prevent a third party from gaining a bunch of seats in the House of Representatives? And slowly building a coalition?

Mostly barriers to getting on the ballot. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are completely stupid. They have a good thing going, and from the local level on up, they make it extremely hard for third parties to get on the ballot.

There are "safe districts".For example, when electing a Congressman, I know my vote doesn't count. I live in Pittsburgh- we're sending the Democrat. Ditto on the President. Heck, even for Mayor- since I'm not a registered Democrat, I don't get to vote for mayor (the mayor is decided by the Democratic primary, not the general election).

There's spite voting- many voters don't vote for a candidate because they particularly love that candidate- they just hate the other guy. So if I really hate Republicans, I'm going to vote for the Democrats and not a third party. That's because the Democrats have the best chance of beating the people I don't like. Look at how many people complained about Nader splitting the vote in 2000 (and Perot in 1992).

The median voter theorem has a role to play in this, too. People will usually vote for whichever candidate is closest to their own feelings- which simply means that someone has to find the median voter's stance on the issues and build a platform there. If a third party candidate starts the process there, you had better believe that one of the major party candidates will move in and steal it from him (in fact, one of the major purposes of third parties is to act as a "colonial organism" for politics- they move into new areas of the political landscape and then get displaced by the major parties).

This is all fueled by first-past-the-post voting. It's a system naturally geared towards building a two party system. The parties will shift, fragment and reform, but in the end, it ...

Call this a pipe dream but I kind of hope we're headed to a post-partisan environment, where the politician's brand comes before the party's brand. Yes there will still be parties, but people will care more about the candidate than the letter next to their name.

I'd even argue that the current President kicked this off with his very smart, very ubiquitous branding during his two presidential runs. Think about how the right doesn't just demonize Democrats, but they hone in on Obama intensely and specifically. They spoof his "O" logo and everything. I think some lessons will be learned from that, especially if Republicans want to disassociate crazy from their party brand.

Pretty sure in many ways the GOP lost. I think we all lost in general. I do think the the 85% of the Senate as a whole won; they showed they could still deliberate actually get things done (the 15% being those who voted against it).

The President won, if only because the "glitches" in ACA did't get highlighted, but mostly because he was playing 3d Chess while Ted Cruz and co. were playing checkers.

The biggest winner, IMHO: Hillary Clinton.

Here's why:

The republicans (and more specifically the teabaggers) consisntantly have vilified the president as being too far left. These accusations have increased in his 2nd term. At the same time they are saying this they are moving the GOP to the right. So there is a a perceived middle (not that BO is far to the left). At the same time, Hillary has been out of this fight, and the Clinton name still is associated with the centrist and successful 90's. This means that Hillary can get the nomination and come in to the right (toward the center) of the Obama administration. Meanwhile, the Republicans are showing a consistent right turn, which leaves Hillary with:

1) The "left"2) The center-left and a large proportion of the center-right

Now imagine if she chooses an Hispanic running mate, someone similarly center-left. Does this person energize the minority (and more specifically the Hispanic) vote, solidifying the block?

Cletus C.:Mentat: Cletus C.: Obama saying he will not negotiate, then negotiates. Failure.

The only thing Obama gave up in this fight was the back of his hand.

And written on the back of that hand was language on checking income eligibility for ACA applicants, a few spending measures for certain districts, a promise for bipartisan budget negotiations and a few more things. Not much. But he did negotiate.

Obama was so against checking income eligibility for ACA applicants that similar measures were already part of the bill. He gave up nothing here. The change was just theater by the GOP to convince the rubes that Obama gave up something. Looks like it worked on some.

Obama and congressional Democrats has been calling for budget negotiations for months. How is Obama and the democrats getting exactly what they have been calling for a concession?

1. In January, "moderate" Republicans will block the Tea Party from trying this stunt again.

2. In outrage, the Tea Party will eventually split from the Republican Party. While that seems like a good thing, it's actually not...

3. That will create three viable parties, with the Republican Party in the middle, to occupy the "centrist" label. Longterm, it will shift all mainstream political discourse further to the right, putting Democrats on equal "extremist" footing with the Tea Party. To be considered centrist, one would have to be Republican.

Not quite. If the GOP fractured, it divides their voting base, while the democratic base remains whole. That would, in effect, ensure they never again hold national office.

Cletus C.:Mentat: Cletus C.: Obama saying he will not negotiate, then negotiates. Failure.

The only thing Obama gave up in this fight was the back of his hand.

And written on the back of that hand was language on checking income eligibility for ACA applicants, a few spending measures for certain districts, a promise for bipartisan budget negotiations and a few more things. Not much. But he did negotiate.

I think it was Sen. Schumer that correctly characterized that addition as a "fig leaf" for the GOP. Can't make the poor bastards walk back home naked. That would just be cruel.

I live in Charleston, SC. One of my local facebook friends posted this this morning:

------------------------

I had a few comments about my post this week, so i want to clarify of what you can do to get these buttheads out of the senate and congress. You can't exactly get them to vote themselves out of office, but what you can do is contact your state's Governor. If 75% of the US Governors call for this to be voted on, it has to be taken up and the people vote on it, not the elected officials.On a side note, we need to make sure Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Mitch McConnel all lose their primary bids. Do not donate to the GOP, donate to the individuals running against them or to freedom works foundation.

And written on the back of that hand was language on checking income eligibility for ACA applicants, a few spending measures for certain districts, a promise for bipartisan budget negotiations and a few more things. Not much. But he did negotiate.

I think it was Sen. Schumer that correctly characterized that addition as a "fig leaf" for the GOP. Can't make the poor bastards walk back home naked. That would just be cruel.

Like Virginia our state was divided during the war and never had to go through Reconstruction because the President (Johnson) was a Tennessean. After the war Governor Brown was..less than gentle with the rebels.

/Blackburn and Dejarlis belong to the derpiest parts of a very divided state

You can arguably exclude Idaho (not a state) and Kansas, which was barely a state in 1861 and was in many ways a proxy war state between the two sides. Arizona was under confederate control. That leaves 7 of the 30 remaining Tea Party crazies who weren't from secessionist states.

The derp is strong there.

Ah, Scott DesJarlais in on that list. That scumbag defeated a pro-life, conservative Democrat, Lincoln Davis, who was deemed to be 'too liberal'. Turns out DesJarlais is a serial cheater and pressured a couple women to get abortions, despite being 'pro-life'.

I don't have an axe to grind with that issue in particular, but the Tea Party will support any hypocritical shiatheel as long as they don't have a (D) behind their name. Bunch of useful idiots, every last one.

Ah, Scott DesJarlais in on that list. That scumbag defeated a pro-life, conservative Democrat, Lincoln Davis, who was deemed to be 'too liberal'. Turns out DesJarlais is a serial cheater and pressured a couple women to get abortions, despite being 'pro-life'.

I don't have an axe to grind with that issue in particular, but the Tea Party will support any hypocritical shiatheel as long as they don't have a (D) behind their name. Bunch of useful idiots, every last one.

The Tea Party out his way is not really welcome in the state house as much as they like to think. They tried to get the Haslam, a republican governor, to fire a female Muslim Deputy Sec of the Treasury fired for allegedly being part of a plot to introduce Sharia law.

Haslam was somewhat terse in his response to STFU and leave the governing to the adults

Leader O'Cola:Thrag: Obama and congressional Democrats has been calling for budget negotiations for months. How is Obama and the democrats getting exactly what they have been calling for a concession?

Was the discretionary spending in the proposed (prior) clean CR's at the GOP suggested level, or is it not?

Yes, the clean CR that Obama supported before the shutdown occurred was at the spending levels the GOP claimed at the time to have wanted. What argument are you trying to make with this question? Are you trying to say that agreeing to something that was already agreed to is a concession?

And written on the back of that hand was language on checking income eligibility for ACA applicants, a few spending measures for certain districts, a promise for bipartisan budget negotiations and a few more things. Not much. But he did negotiate.

I think it was Sen. Schumer that correctly characterized that addition as a "fig leaf" for the GOP. Can't make the poor bastards walk back home naked. That would just be cruel.

That's a good description of it.

It is fun watching people try to spin strengthening a part of the ACA and the GOP finally agreeing to negotiations it has been saying no to for months as concessions by the democrats. Next up we should see people claiming the bits of spending added to the bill for things like disaster relief were concessions victoriously pulled from the democrats. I really want to see how people try spin more government spending as a concession from the democrats as the GOP tries to claim the shutdown was over too much spending.

And written on the back of that hand was language on checking income eligibility for ACA applicants, a few spending measures for certain districts, a promise for bipartisan budget negotiations and a few more things. Not much. But he did negotiate.

Obama was so against checking income eligibility for ACA applicants that similar measures were already part of the bill. He gave up nothing here. The change was just theater by the GOP to convince the rubes that Obama gave up something. Looks like it worked on some.

Obama and congressional Democrats has been calling for budget negotiations for months. How is Obama and the democrats getting exactly what they have been calling for a concession?

He negotiated but gave up very little. But he negotiated, as hard as that seems to be to accept.

MustangFive:urbangirl: Ambivalence: Heliovdrake: Conservatism cant fail you, only YOU can fail conservaism, and thats what we saw last night. We need to distance ourselves from the RINO SCUM who voted with the socialist democrats, Rush and Glenn already get it, they know the majority of the G.odless O.ld P.retenders. Now is the time, rally our troops and kick out the GOP in 2014! Patch up as many holes as we can in the USS USA by blocking anything the dictator in chief wants until 2016 when we can get our MAN into office, I feel bad for the mess he'll have to deal with, and Im sure the smell will never come out of the carpet in the oval office!

/What do you think? I'm trying to pander better to the GOP, I want to start a blog and sell merch on it to the rubes, this is my first real go at pandering to them. Do I have enough vitrol, or should I crank up the hate, or subtle racism?

I think you should pepper it with obscure homo-erotic euphemisms. Oh, and rape references. That's pretty much all you're missing.

As a woman, I'd like to suggest some reference to abortion/baby killing.

Needs more Jeezus... Also, ALL CAPS for words like "SOCIALIST," DICTATOR," "rally OUR troops," etc, & more exclamation points. Have to over-emphasize the nuttery, otherwise they'll see that you're not truly "ONE OF US!!!"

This is an actual reply to the comment Heliovdrake posted. Straight copy and paste:

"wow, great stuff! Too many Americans are TOTALLY unaware or don't care about the danger this country faces right now...and it's not from FOREIGN ENEMIES! God help us!"

sobriquet by any other name:Mr. Coffee Nerves: $24,000,000,000 for Boehner to learn what we already knew -- negotiation with the teahadists is like going fishing with a guy who uses dynamite, and to save time he lights all the fuses before you launch the boat

+1 i made the same comment yesterday (like fishing with a guy who uses dynamite, but throws it under the boat... but look at all the fish, Boehner!)

Nicholas D. Wolfwood:COMALite J: I didn't know that Texas had already gone through with their plans to split into six States (I thought it was five?), and isn't it a bit confusing for them all to keep the same name? Not to mention East and West Tennessee, and North and South Georgia plus Greater Atlanta as a third Georgia State? And I guess the (318) Area Code of Louisiana is a separate State now in reality just as it has always pretty much been culturally? And is Maricopa County its own State now?

I may be mistaken (and I don't think anyone else has addressed this), but I believe he has listed each state once per Representative that was on the wrong (e.g. 'Tea Party') side of this. Thus, for example, if Texas had six TP Reps trying to push the country off the cliff, Texas got listed six times.

If so, that was a confusing way to put that list together, but that's the best guess I can make about it.

And written on the back of that hand was language on checking income eligibility for ACA applicants, a few spending measures for certain districts, a promise for bipartisan budget negotiations and a few more things. Not much. But he did negotiate.

hey, he had to cave in and capitulate a little bit or he couldn't call himself a true democrat, you think they can spend years building up a brand of spinelessness and then throw it all away?

Wait you seriously think a "capitulation" for a Dem is spending money?

Worse. Lamar Smith is a Christian Scientist. They're one of the groups that occasionally runs into problems with the law for praying instead of getting actual medical care for their children. They believe that spiritual reality is the only reality, and that the material world - including sickness, death and evil - are illusions, or mistakes of mortal mind.

incendi:mrshowrules: Isn't the head of GOP science committee a creationist?

Worse. Lamar Smith is a Christian Scientist. They're one of the groups that occasionally runs into problems with the law for praying instead of getting actual medical care for their children. They believe that spiritual reality is the only reality, and that the material world - including sickness, death and evil - are illusions, or mistakes of mortal mind.

They're about as anti-science as you can possibly be.

It could be worse, they could have put him in the Health committee (I hope I'm not giving anyone ideas).

(from Borowitz) Sen. Cruz's closest ally, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) also spoke reverently of the shutdown, calling it "the most expensive Civil War reënactment in history.""Unfortunately, once again, the wrong side won," he said